Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of positive integers and factors


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anybody wants to merge some of this content elsewhere, I can userfy these articles upon request. Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

List of positive integers and factors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Parallel (essentially, a reformatted fork) to other number articles.
 * Requires citations.
 * "Prime Factors" column is redundant to the misnamed "Divisor Pairs" (actually, factorization).
 * Actually, both are redundant to a column "Prime factorization", which isn't there, but could be populated by a LUA module.
 * "Distinction" column is unmaintainable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Numbers. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Pages split out after the nomination and now included in the nomination:
 * I can think of a number of other reasons why this article shouldn't be here, but let's see if someone can come up with a reason it should be here. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant and too long. Prime factors for numbers up to 1000 are already in Table of prime factors. Divisors are already in Table of divisors. 10,000 numbers is too much. The article is nearly three times as large as number 2 at Special:LongPages. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant to the others. Being a Fibonacci number is irrelevant to having factors; this list is trying too hard. Reywas92Talk 01:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Some distinctions" column was meant to apply to the number, not necessarily to its factors. Do you have any suggestions?  Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please keep: I am the creator of this list.  I would like to make the following points:
 * This list is only ten hours old and is still under construction. I appreciate your prompt attention, but I think we should withhold judgement for a few weeks.
 * Citations are included in the linked articles. This is common for lists.
 * I created this list as a single 10,000 row table to test load times. I can break this list into shorter tables on multiple pages or on a single page.  I have yet to decide.  I would appreciate your input.
 * This list duplicates some of the information contained in several other articles. However, this list brings together this information in a table with a simple format that is easily read by both novice and sophisticated users.
 * I believe the "Divisor pairs" column heading is appropriate, but I am certainly open to suggestions.
 * I changed the name of the "Distictions" column to "Some distictions" to avoid confusion. This column could contain virtually anything, but I think editors should use their discretion.  I appreciate your comments.
 * I believe this list contains valuable information that many users will find useful. I've used my own version of this list for over 20 years.
 * I really appreciate your consideration. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK (without merging, as the added content over the existing articles is, as Arthur Rubin already states, unmaintainable). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your concern about maintainability. I certainly don't have any problems.  Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please note: I've split this list into five tables on five pages.  This should make the list far more manageable.  The list is now down to #791 on Special:LongPages.  I could split this list into ten pages to reduce the size further.   Buaidh  talk contribs 03:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question: Buaidh, can I ask the rational behind creating this page? It's possible that this will help us determine whether it is sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia. As to the objections about maintainability, I do not believe that should be an issue. Our understanding of these numbers are not being revised, and it is of finite length. NoCOBOL (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Separating the long list into several subarticles (and I don't think a subarticle title like List of positive integers and factors/2 conforms to MOS) does not address other issues raised. You say this list "brings together this information"; why didn't you propose a merger of the other similar articles rather than duplicating them? If a reader would be better served with certain information in a single place (which I often support), then combine the information rather than adding redundancy (which I do not). However, I doubt any reader will be coming to Wikipedia in search of the factors of 8648; this goes beyond the realm of being encyclopedic. Reywas92Talk 08:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with Table of prime factors as an artilce on an existing topic. I think the tables created here are superior, not least because of the narrative additions in the "Some distinctions" column. However its clear that past a certain point we start running out of things to say in that column...--Pontificalibus 10:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are multiple issues, as noted above:
 * The article is too long. (This might be resolved by splitting it, but....)
 * The description column is unmaintainable. (Will anyone notice if a vandal notes something in the line for ?)  Before that column is populated, a verifiable methodology for determining (and populating) what goes there needs to be determined.
 * The "Prime factors" column should be "Prime factorization", and should be calculated via the LUA module.
 * The "Divisor pairs" column should, if included at all, be replaced by "Factors". However, this is one of the fields most frequently vandalized in individual number articles.  In addition, this is sufficiently complicated, that if the author made a few mistakes, we'd probably never find them unless someone went to the effort of regenerating the table from time to time.
 * The split article titles violate WP:MOS. (This could be resolved, but the author probably wouldn't go along with the necessary changes.)  The split tables also are improperly indexed.
 * Has anyone verified the colors for accessibility? Furthermore, the colors can and should be maintained by a modification of the LUA factorization module.
 * We could further discuss combining Table of prime factors and Table of divisors in this format, or expanding them, but that's not a matter for AfD. This article is redundant to those articles.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Response: I'm happy to address the concerns expressed here and to modify this list as appropriate.  The purpose of this AfD entry is to determine whether a list like this should even exist on Wikipedia, not whether it needs to be modified.  (Wikipedia has substantial articles on important topics such as Robert Underdunk Terwilliger Jr., PhD.)
 * I've split this list into five pages to address length concerns. We can split this list further if there is a consensus.  We can certainly change the column headings and indexing if there is a consensus.  The "Some distinctions" column is merely to alert the user to other interesting topics for further exploration.  I merely added some things I felt were interesting.  There are no required or prohibited entries.  We can certainly address criteria for inclusion.
 * Vandalism can be repaired by reversion to previous edits. We can even lock this list if vandalism is a major concern.  To maintain this list, I merely download it to an Excel spreadsheet.  I converted this list from a personal HTML page I've used for many years.  The row colorization is merely an aid to casual examination and does not create accessibility issues.
 * We can certainly address mergers to avoid duplication. A certain amount of duplication is warranted if it aids the user in pursuit of different topic objectives.
 * This list is intended as a guide to interested users, and not a monument to number theory. Perhaps we should lighten-up.
 * Thanks for all your interest.  Buaidh  talk contribs 16:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you address the redundancy issue? We may have Sideshow Bob, but we don't have a seperate article with more interesting and better-formatted content at Robert Underdunk Terwilliger Jr. Anyone thinking of creating such an article ought to focus their efforts on improving Sideshow Bob. Why should we have an article List of positive integers and factors if the content is already covered in the articles mentioned above?--Pontificalibus 17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The content of this list is covered in many different articles. We may need to merge articles.  Each of these articles has a different format and different content.  Before we start deleting articles, as this AfD entry proposes, we need to contemplate how each of these articles is used and how they may be optimally combined.  To merge articles probably means either a loss of information or overly complicating existing articles.  I've been involved in a number of these discussions and understand the issues involved.  Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as a WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Beyond 1000 (the greatest number in Table of prime factors), it is not entirely clear where we should draw the line, as such a list could continue ad infinitum with increasingly sparse useful information. Furthermore, many of the numbers listed here are not mentioned at all in 1000 (number), 2000 (number), etc. and do not exist as redirects, which is a strong indication that they are not notable. As such, the distinction column is left blank, or is filled with information which is not clearly related to factors, as the article title would otherwise suggest. Per, there is a lot of content in these lists that is redundant, and for the fifth list especially, there really isn't much said that is nontrivial (i.e. that would satisfy WP:1729 or factorizations that one could determine easily) and not already at 8000 (number) or 9000 (number). ComplexRational (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete egregious violation of WP:NOT ("Excessive listings of unexplained statistics"); also a duplicate of Table of prime factors which I'm not sure has any rationale to exist. This probably could have been a speedy delete; Buaidh has over 100000 edits and should know better - the article being new is not an excuse to keep a duplicate article here ("withhold judgement for a few weeks"). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize I was egregious. I only have 207,493 edits.  Mea culpa.   Buaidh  talk contribs 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Table of prime factors was kept at Articles for deletion/Table of prime factors, and Table of divisors at Articles for deletion/Table of divisors. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks as if I inadvertently stepped into a longstanding mathematics dispute. I did not mean to ruffle any feathers.  I normally work elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I thought this table might be of interest.  Apparently, I was wrong.  Thanks all the same.  The elderly curmudgeon,  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, there are questions about the suitability of this specific implementation of the list, and fears that it may duplicate existing content. I share those fears about the later, but I believe in this case the implementation is vastly superior to existing content. As such, I believe the effort should be kept while we determine how we wish to implement this general class of pages, with the intent of having this page become the 'standard'. NoCOBOL (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should wait and see how all these relevant articles could be improved. This list could be expanded or compacted.  The name of this list could be changed to something more appropriate.  I'm open to whatever changes a consensus feels are needed.  Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 01:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Please note: I have not altered these tables, but I have fixed the page names, table names, indexing, header, and footer.  I would appreciate your comments.  I 'm having a problem with the navbox not compressing appropriately.  Do you have any suggestions?  Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 01:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this article specifically with no preference on the other 4. Could always consider only leaving in the notable numbers (like the Fibonaccis, square, etc. – with sidenotes in the table). ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  05:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment What happened to WP:BEFORE C2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article."? RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a request to consider allowing time, and perhaps the nominator did consider doing so. An alternative view might be "If you think a new article isn't suitable for Wikipedia, consider nominating for deletion immediately so that editors don't waste time developing something that may ultimately be deleted".--Pontificalibus 16:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This list is finished unless a consensus wishes to add to or remove entries from the "Some distinctions" column. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 05:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge with Table of prime factors. This list is much easier (for me) to read, but 10,000 is excessive. Aurornisxui (talk)
 * The List of positive integers and factors page only contains 1 through 2000. The information in the ten tables of the Table of prime factors are contained in this list.  I would suggest removing the ten tables and moving the article to Properties of natural numbers.  Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 05:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.